On the very day Republicans read the Constitution, two House Republicans violate it

Bfgrn

Bfgrn

New member
Two House Republicans Miss Swearing-In Ceremony, Violate Constitution

Two House Republicans missed the official congressional swearing in ceremony because they were hobnobbing at a fundraiser, reports TPM. Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, and freshman Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., violated the Constitution by missing the ceremony, though apparently they did take the oath while watching the ceremony on TV from the shindig for Fitzpatrick at the Capitol Visitors Center. House Republicans had to put their health care repeal vote on hold when they found out that Sessions—who had been casting votes all day as a member of the House Rules Committee—wasn't a bona fide congressman yet. Committee Chair David Dreier, R-Calif., was forced to suspend hearings, and Sessions' blunder may cost the committee all their health care repeal work so far. House Speaker John Boehner is trying to persuade Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to approve the committee's work retroactively.

More...

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.
 
Rana said:
Not up on your Constitution there Yurt?
Click to expand...

violated the Constitution by missing the ceremony

why don't you show me where in the constitution simply missing the ceremony is a violation....

the votes were improper, but missing the ceremony is not a violation...and i'm not surprised you didn't actually cite anything, and solely ad hom
 
Yurt said:
violated the Constitution by missing the ceremony

why don't you show me where in the constitution simply missing the ceremony is a violation....

the votes were improper, but missing the ceremony is not a violation...and i'm not surprised you didn't actually cite anything, and solely ad hom
Click to expand...

They tried to come and play without being properly sworn in, I think not being sworn in is in violation of the laws that were set forth.
 
Yurt said:
violated the Constitution by missing the ceremony

why don't you show me where in the constitution simply missing the ceremony is a violation....

the votes were improper, but missing the ceremony is not a violation...and i'm not surprised you didn't actually cite anything, and solely ad hom
Click to expand...

"Article VI, Paragraph 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

There is no provision for swearing in by TV! sorry!
 
Rana said:
"Article VI, Paragraph 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

There is no provision for swearing in by TV! sorry!
Click to expand...
There also is no specific description as to how the Oath would be administered. I think what you have is a paper tiger by the tail. You're still holding a tail, but it isn't quite the same thing.
 
Rana said:
"Article VI, Paragraph 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

There is no provision for swearing in by TV! sorry!
Click to expand...

unfortunately for you, the constitution does not say "missing the ceremony" is a violation, the fact is, they were sworn in, it does not say that have to be at the "ceremony" nor does it forbid swearing in over tv....it simply says:

shall be bound by oath OR affirmation to support the constitution

apparently you do not know the constitution
 
Bfgrn and Rana trying to "out-moron" each other.....?
Keep going, you're both tied at imbecile...
 
Last edited:
Yurt said:
unfortunately for you, the constitution does not say "missing the ceremony" is a violation, the fact is, they were sworn in, it does not say that have to be at the "ceremony" nor does it forbid swearing in over tv....it simply says:

shall be bound by oath OR affirmation to support the constitution

apparently you do not know the constitution
Click to expand...

Who swore them in, they were not present at the ceremony, so you think being sworn in by TV is proper?

Then why did they stop the work in committee if it wasn't a violation?

If it is setting a new president, then why would anyone bother to show up? they could all be sworn in by TV or Skype!
 
Rana said:
Who swore them in, they were not present at the ceremony, so you think being sworn in by TV is proper?

Then why did they stop the work in committee if it wasn't a violation?

If it is setting a new president, then why would anyone bother to show up? they could all be sworn in by TV or Skype!
Click to expand...
The Ceremony is a huge group of people all taking the Oath at the same time. Taking it by repeating after him in another room is little different. It isn't the "violation of the Constitution" you want it to be. Now, it is a violation of the rules and they should have officially sworn in, but this "They violated the Constitution!" stuff is just a, dare we say it, PR stunt?

It's silly pedantic nonsense.

It's full of phail.
 
Damocles said:
The Ceremony is a huge group of people all taking the Oath at the same time. Taking it by repeating after him in another room is little different. It isn't the "violation of the Constitution" you want it to be. Now, it is a violation of the rules and they should have officially sworn in, but this "They violated the Constitution!" stuff is just a, dare we say it, PR stunt?

It's silly pedantic nonsense.

It's full of phail.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, and one good PR stunt deserves another!
 
Rana said:
Who swore them in, they were not present at the ceremony, so you think being sworn in by TV is proper?

Then why did they stop the work in committee if it wasn't a violation?

If it is setting a new president, then why would anyone bother to show up? they could all be sworn in by TV or Skype!
Click to expand...

so you still can't actually cite anything in the constitution that says it is a violation of the constitution to not be at the ceremony

got it
 
NigelTufnel said:
So if I recited the oath or affirmation while watching on C-SPAN I am now a member of Congress? Sweet.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. But you can pretend that people elected you and that you were seated if you really want to. Show up to vote, it'll be a real hoot.

Again, cite the section that states how they have to take the oath or affirmation. If you have nothing tell us all about it, otherwise you're just spouting the same inane rubbish that you object to. Tell us how it was a violation. Put up or shut up.
 
Damocles said:
Not exactly. But you can pretend that people elected you and that you were seated if you really want to. Show up to vote, it'll be a real hoot.

Again, cite the section that states how they have to take the oath or affirmation. If you have nothing tell us all about it, otherwise you're just spouting the same inane rubbish that you object to. Tell us how it was a violation. Put up or shut up.
Click to expand...


Just so I'm understanding correctly, your position is that it is 100% constitutionally acceptable to take the oath of office by watching it being administered on TV and following along?
 
Rereading things, it wasn't that they weren't there to be sworn in, it was that they tried to go about their usual business without being sworn in...which is required by the Constitution, so now you can dissect that if you wish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top